Why do modern DSLR cameras need a mirror?

[rich888]

Am hoping this isn't too dumb a question, but why do modern DSLR cameras actually need a mirror. I appreciate that in the 1980s and 1990s it enabled the photographer to view the image through the viewfinder, but nowadays with the advent of digital technology surely an electronic viewfinder could display what the lens sees, so why continue with the mirror?

I ask this because on a number of occasions each year I take photographs in the local concert hall or theatre, when you can literally hear a pin drop, so the clatter of the mirror moving out of the way when using a DSLR sounds deafening, so I generally wait will till the end of the performance when the audience start applauding. If taking the photo was silent it would make life so much easier. Using my previous S100 and my current RX100 with the sound options switched off is so much easier.

So once again. why do current generation DSLR cameras have a mirror when an electronic viewfinder would solve the problem.

[rich888]

GravelBen said:

Simpo Two said:

Personally I like to see through the lens, not look at a TV.

+1

Most SLRs do have a 'quiet' shutter mode now, which dampens the noise of the mirror. Its still not silent though.

Yes many manufacturers provide a 'quiet' shutter mode for the mirror, but it's not the mirror in modern day cameras that is collecting the image data, it is the image sensor.

Surely at this point the DSLR is using raw digital data for transferring to the SD card, with the optical viewfinder kept on for namesake rather than for practical reasons.

Perhaps the mirror will indeed be deleted in the next generation of DSLR cameras.

[rich888]

Simpo Two said:

rich888 said:

Surely at this point the DSLR is using raw digital data for transferring to the SD card, with the optical viewfinder kept on for namesake rather than for practical reasons.

Perhaps the mirror will indeed be deleted in the next generation of DSLR cameras.

They won't be DSLRs then! You can if course have an optical VF that doesn't look through the lens - but that method is much older than reflex cameras, so would be going backwards.

Why is that when DSLR stands for digital single-lens reflex camera and has nothing to do with the mirror because for the vast majority of camera users, the term DSLR is regarded as the best of the best.

I think the term SLR and DSLR has been retained by manufacturers due to their fear if they do pull the plug on the mirror.

Perhaps the next generation of mirror-less digital cameras is about to be unveiled...

[rich888]

DIW35 said:

Also, the mirror flapping about is only part of the problem. A lot of the noise generated by a DSLR when taking a photo actually comes from the shutter.

Interesting that you say that, makes me wonder whether it might be an idea to do away with the mechanical shutter altogether and implement an LCD shutter, going from clear to black in a fraction of a second, perhaps a coating on the sensor. Would probably cheaper to produce, faster, and far more reliable.

Dr Jekyll said:

rich888 said:

I ask this because on a number of occasions each year I take photographs in the local concert hall or theatre, when you can literally hear a pin drop, so the clatter of the mirror moving out of the way when using a DSLR sounds deafening, so I generally wait will till the end of the performance when the audience start applauding. If taking the photo was silent it would make life so much easier.
.

Traditionally this was what Leicas were for.

Unfortunately my pockets aren't that deep!

MysteryLemon said:

Elderly said:

The Olympus OM-D EM-1 ( with no mirror ) already has on-sensor phase detection which is utilised when in tracking modes,
as well as the usually more accurate contrast detect which is its default autofocus mode when not tracking.

Yup, there are a few cameras out there that have taken a step in the right direction but DSLRs are still better at doing what mirrorless cameras are trying to do. The tech in DSLRs are much more mature than the way mirrorless cameras are going about it. If you want to shoot moving subjects, a DSLR is still the best tool for the job. That will change over time as tech advances though.

I agree with you that the DSLR market is extremely mature which keeps prices competitive, as well as ensuring a high level of competition between the manufacturers to keep on improving the quality of the cameras. This coupled with a plentiful choice of lenses to choose from, and a wealth of other ancillary components, will in my opinion, ensure that the DSLR remains at the top of the pecking order for the foreseeable future, but that's not to say that major improvements cannot be implemented as and when the technology is developed to supersede existing methods.

I remember my father saying back in the 1990s that digital would never exceed the quality of film, and now look what has happened!

[rich888]

i see no reason as to why the quality of an electronic view finder (EVF) shouldn't match or exceed that of the conventional optical view finder anytime soon. Look to the latest Apple iPads and the Samsung tablets to appreciate that they can already display more information than the eye can see, so it stands to reason that it's only a matter of time before the EVF surpasses the optical equivalent.

The auto focus (AF) systems may need to be adapted, but with the massive cost savings of doing away with a clumsy mechanical mirror and perhaps the shutter mechanism by adopting the LCD, I can't honestly see how any camera manufacturer can ignore the future sales potential by being able to reduce quite substantially the manufacturing costs and improve the functionality of the camera in one foul swoop.

Edited by rich888 on Thursday 20th November 00:01

[rich888]

LongQ said:

The simple answer to the title line has to be that if the DSLR lacked an R it would probably need to be called a DSLEV.

Not a happy thought but I suppose things could be worse.

Digital Single Lens, or DSL might be more appropriate

[rich888]

Mr Will said:

rich888 said:

LongQ said:

The simple answer to the title line has to be that if the DSLR lacked an R it would probably need to be called a DSLEV.

Not a happy thought but I suppose things could be worse.

Digital Single Lens, or DSL might be more appropriate

I prefer EVIL...

(Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens)

Haha, I like that, has a certain ring to it, though not so sure it's entirely politically correct in this lily-livered nanny state we live in.

Just imagine walking into PC World, Jessops, or John Lewis and asking for a demonstration of the latest 'Evil' Camera!!!